Court awards ADF right to intervene on behalf of abstinence-only sex education program
BOSTON – A federal court has granted attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund the right to intervene on behalf of Silver Ring Thing, an abstinence-based sex education program in danger of losing federal funding because of an ACLU lawsuit.
“ADF chose to represent SRT because the program offers kids the truth about the only certain way to avoid the destructive effects of premarital sex: abstinence,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. “We are continuing our fight to show SRT has not run afoul of the law and in fact never utilized funding for religious indoctrination or teaching, as the ACLU claims.”
SRT’s program encourages teenagers to sign a pledge of abstinence until marriage and to wear a silver ring as a reminder of their vow.
The ACLU of Massachusetts filed its lawsuit, ACLU of Massachusetts v. Leavitt, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts last month against federal officials in charge of funding sex education programs. The ACLU claims that funding provided by the federal government to SRT constitutes an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
According to the motion to intervene, SRT has a direct interest in the outcome of the case since the ACLU is challenging SRT’s constitutional right to participate in government funding programs free from religious discrimination.
“Time and time again, the effectiveness of abstinence-only education programs has been proven,” Oster said. “The ACLU’s continuing crusade to undermine programs which encourage teenagers to remain abstinent shows again their ethical shortcomings and an agenda which is beneficial to no one.”
Oster clarified the facts about the recent decision of the Department of Health and Human Services with regard to funding for SRT: “HHS has asked SRT to clarify its guidelines to make sure that money is not spent inappropriately, but made no finding that money was spent inappropriately. HHS simply wants assurance that all guidelines will be met. SRT is working toward that end, as it always has.”
I really can’t figure out what the far-left have against teaching abstinence. It works 100% of the time in preventing disease and unwanted pregnancies when practiced. The lucrative business of abortion is important to the ACLU, and perhaps this explains their position in a more clear manner.
I’m glad to see this case is in the hands of such a highly regarded organization such as the ADF.
Thanks Mudville Gazette
Email This
Posted by Jay on August 24, 2005 12:01 am
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL:
- Barking Moonbat Early Warning System: Captain's Mast
Comments
7 Responses to “Court awards ADF right to intervene on behalf of abstinence-only sex education program”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Hey, I was never aware that “endorsement” of religion is a bad thing. Why shouldn’t the government support something that has proven benefits for individuals and society?
It endorses healthy living, right? Even if someone doesn’t believe in exercising, the government encourages you to do what’s good for you and the country.
“Establishment” of religion in my mind has only been forcing all to a specific denomination.
I’m serious about this — can someone tell me where the ACLU gets that an “endorsement” is against the constitution?
You bring up a good point. The Constitution actually says that “Congress shall make no law.” The left have completely stretched that one beyond repair however to “seperation of Church and State.” Which is never mentioned.
Always remember the second part of the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Why does the ACLU always forget the second part of that phrase, THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF!
Just like congress can’t establish a religion, it can’t prevent it either.
The ACLU’s legal complaint, which can be found at the ACLU website, lays out the ACLU’s position quite clearly. Though it obviously contains conclusions that must be verified in open court, some of the more egregious accusations, if true, are clear violations of the HHS guidelines.
The ACLU is not causing SRT to lose its funding. HHS is the only one who can revoke SRT’s federal funding and they should withhold it if the ACLU’s conclusions are accurate. HHS has asked SRT to address some concerns which is code language for, “It’s clear you’ve screwed up, we’re giving you a chance to fix it before we have to pull funding.” It is telling that SRT has significantly changed its website by removing much of its religious information.
The funding has been suspended, but ADF seems confident the terms were not violated. We will see how it plays out.
This is a summary judgment slam-dunk for the ACLU.
Interesting info